COMPILATION OF GEOLOGICAL INFORMATION FOR THE RICHTON SALT DOME PERRY COUNTY, MISSISSIPPI MMRI Open-file Report 14-01S By Charles T. Swann, R.P.G.
Mississippi Mineral Resources Institute 111 Brevard Hall University, Mississippi 38677 September, 2014 Table of Contents
List of Figures………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….…….………….2
List of Tables…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….….…………..3
Abstract……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….……..…………….4
Introduction………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….…….…………….4
Published Literature…………………………………………………………………………………………………………..………………5
Professional Literature……………………………………………………………………………………………………….……………..6
Publications of the U.S. Department of Energy and other agencies of the U.S. Government…..………….7
Reports from Mississippi governmental agencies ……………………………………………………………………...……11
Literature and Document Collections Dedicated to the Richton Dome………………………………..…………..12
Subsurface Information (Well locations, information sources)…………………………………..……….……………13
Drilling History……………………………………………………………………………………………………….……………13
Hydrocarbon Exploration Wells………………………………………………………………….………….…..….……13
East Apollo Field Wells and Field Production……………………………………………………………..……..…14
Sulfur Exploration Wells………………………………………………………………..…….……………………..………16
U.S. Department of Energy Test Wells………………………………………….……….…………………….………19
Potential Uses of the Richton Salt Structure………………………………………………….…………….………..…………21
Acknowledgements……………………………………………………………………………………….……………….…………….…22
Certification………………………………………………………………………………………………….…………………..…………….23
pg. 1
List of Figures
Figure 1 – Location map of the Richton Salt Dome, Perry County, Mississippi. Elevations are depth relative to sea level…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………...5
Figure 2 – Oil and Water Production in East Apollo (in barrels)………………………….………..…………………..16
pg. 2
List of Tables
Table 1 - Hydrocarbon Exploration Wells……………………………………………………….…..………………..…………14
Table 2 – East Apollo field Wells…...... 15
Table 3 – Sulfur Exploration Wells……………………………………………………………………………….………………….16
Table 4 – U.S. Department of Energy Test Wells………………………………………………….…………………………..19
pg. 3
COMPILATION OF GEOLOGICAL INFORMATION FOR THE RICHTON SALT DOME PERRY COUNTY, MISSISSIPPI
Abstract
The Richton Salt Dome is located in Perry County, Mississippi, and partially underlies the town of Richton. This dome is the largest in Mississippi as well as the shallowest, with salt encountered at a depth of 767 feet. At a depth of 2000 feet, there is an estimated 4,376 acres of salt. Large areas of salt and at shallow depths, are characteristics ideal for economic development of the resource. The goal of this report is to summarize the geological data generated by private industry as well as State and Federal governmental agencies. A total of 75 bibliographic entries are included as well as information on 92 over-dome wells. Hopefully, these data will assist in dome utilization studies by providing a single source for pertinent literature and well information regarding Richton Dome.
Introduction
Common salt (NaCl) is one of Mississippi’s most underutilized mineral resources. With a number of salt domes within the State, Mississippi is utilizing only six for gas storage. The Richton Salt Dome, located in Perry County near the town of Richton, is Mississippi’s largest and shallowest salt dome and is not utilized at present (see Figure 1). The majority of the Richton Dome literature is associated with its use as a potential site for storage of high-level nuclear waste. This controversial use of the dome ended when both Mississippi sites were abandoned in favor of the Yucca Mountain, Nevada, site. This set of studies did produce an abundance of literature relating to geology and groundwater in the vicinity of the dome. These repository studies are public documents and could be used to build a geologic framework. Many of these documents are listed below. Documents that do not have significant bearing on the dome geology are not included in the listing. A companion set of digital data suitable for spatial analysis is also available through the Mississippi Mineral Resources Institute (MMRI) web site (www.mmri.olemiss.edu). These digital data will allow the user to download hydrocarbon well logs, mineral exploration well logs and the locations of wells drilled by the U.S. Department of Energy in the Richton area.
The Richton Dome is both large and shallow. It has been drilled extensively by private industry as well as the U.S. Government (see Thieling and Moody, 1997). The MRIG-9 well drilled by the U.S. Department of Energy sampled salt at a depth of approximately 767 feet (see also Lord and others (2007). Lord and others, (2007), estimated that there are 3885 acres of limestone cap rock at a depth of 600 feet and 4,376 acres of salt at a depth of 2,000 feet. These two characteristics make the dome attractive for economic utilization, particularly for hydrocarbon storage and perhaps for salt mining. The dome’s edges are not clearly defined and vary with depth becoming more extensive in the shallower subsurface. At a depth of 4000 feet the dome is contained on the Rhodes and Richton 7.5 minute topographic quadrangles although it approaches the western edge of both maps. Ovett and Ovett SE are the topographic maps adjoining the western edge.
pg. 4
The purpose of this report is to support the potential economic development of this underutilized resource, one of the primary responsibilities of the MMRI. Background literature search is the precursor to any utilization project and is the basis on which many decisions will be made. Here we have compiled and summarized the geological information regarding the dome. The goal is to provide one source of background information on Richton Dome and hopefully save time and effort for others in need of this type of information.
Published Literature
The literature regarding Richton is significant in its abundance and it is here divided into three categories: professional, U.S. Department of Energy, other Federal agencies and reports
Figure 1 - Location map and structure contours map of Richton Salt Dome, Perry County, Mississippi. Elevations are depth relative to sea level.
pg. 5 generated by Mississippi government agencies. Each entry contains the bibliographic information to allow the citation to be found in public records and libraries. The U.S. Department of Energy literature consists of reports to the U.S. Department of Energy from its various contractors. These reports are public information and can be accessed through libraries designated as repositories of U.S. Government documents, or through interlibrary loan arrangements. Some documents are in digital form and can be downloaded, but others are in paper form only. The listing of professional literature consists of publications in professional journals (largely geology-related publications). The Mississippi Office of Geology has retained a set of reports by Mississippi contractors investigating various aspects of the dome. To view a more complete set of these reports, one should contact the Office of Geology in Jackson, Mississippi, (ph. 601-961-5500). Included in this listing are only publications that include Richton Dome in a significant manner rather than a passing mention.
Professional Literature
Alexander, C.W., C.L. Morgan and M.E. Norman, 1945, Developments in southeastern states in 1944: Bulletin of the American Association of Petroleum Geologists, vol., 29, no. 6, pp. 815 -835.
Berger, Z., and J. Aghassy, 1980, Geomorphic manifestations of salt dome stability: Applied Geomorphology, Binghamton Symposia, Kent State University, vol. 11, pp. 72-84.
Corcoran, A.E., 1972, The feasibility of storing large quantities of crude oil in salt dome solution cavities: unpublished Master of Science thesis, The University of Texas, Austin, Texas, 82 p.
Corcoran, A.E., F.W. Jessen and H. von Schonfeldt, 1973, Feasibility of storing large quantities of crude oil in salt dome solution cavities: Fourth International Symposium on Salt – Northern Ohio Geological Society, vol. 2, pp. 277 – 283.
George, S.M., 1991, An interpretation of geologic conditions at Richton Salt Dome for possible selection as a nuclear waste repository site: Association of Engineering Geologists, 34th Annual Meeting Proceedings, pp. 403 – 408.
Karges, H.E., 1975, Petroleum potential of Mississippi shallow salt domes: Gulf Coast Association of Geological Societies Transactions, vol. 25, pp. 168 – 181.
Mullin, C. W., 1982, Geology, Caprock and salt stock of the Richton Salt Dome: unpublished Master of Science Thesis, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, Georgia, 157 p.
Swann, C.T. , 1989, Review of geology of Mississippi salt domes involved in nuclear research: Transactions – Gulf Coast Association of Geological Societies, vol. 39, pp. 543-551.
Thieling, S.C. and J.S. Moody, 1997, Atlas of shallow Mississippi salt domes: Mississippi Office of Geology, Bulletin 131, 328 p.
pg. 6
Werner, M.L., M.D. Feldman, and L.P. Knauth, 1988, Petrography and geochemistry of water-rock interactions in Richton Dome cap rock (southeastern Mississippi, U.S.A.): Chemical Geology, v.74, p. 113-135.
Publications of the U.S. Department of Energy and other agencies of the U.S. Government
Bechtel National, Inc., 1980, Regional environmental characterization report for the Gulf Interior Region and surrounding territory: U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Nuclear Waste Isolation, ONWI- 67, 463 p.
______, 1982, Environmental characterization report for the Gulf Interior Region Mississippi study area: U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Nuclear Waste Isolation, ONWI-193, 211 p.
Bechtel Group Inc. and Law Engineering Testing Company, 1983, Site characterization plan: Gulf Coast salt domes: U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Nuclear Waste Isolation, ONWI-293, 630 p.
Beckman, J.D. and A.K. Williamson, 1990, Salt dome locations in the Gulf Coastal Plain, South-Central United States: U.S. Geological Survey, Open-file Report 90-4060, 44p.
Bentley, C. B., 1983, Preliminary report on the geohydrology near Cypress Creek and Richton Salt Domes, Perry County, Mississippi: U.S. Geological Survey, Water Resources Investigations Report 83- 4169, 40p.
Brandwein, S.S. and R.M. White, 1983, Surface geologic reconnaissance of Richton Dome, Perry County, Mississippi: U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Nuclear Waste Isolation, ONWI-298, 10 P.
Dames and Moore, 1978, Preliminary site selection report inland domes-Mississippi/Alabama: Technical Report of the U.S. Department of Energy, contract EL-78-C-01-7191, 78p.
Drumheller, J.C., S. I. Furest, B.P. Cavan, and J.A. Saunders, 1982, Petrographic and geochemical characteristics of the Richton salt core: U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Nuclear Waste Isolation, ONWI-277, 85p.
Dunrud, R.C., and B.B. Nevins, 1981, Solution mining and subsidence in evaporite rocks in the United States: U.S. Geological Survey, Miscellaneous Investigations Series, Map I-1298, 1:5,000,000, 2 sheets.
pg. 7
Earth Technology Corporation, 1984, Near-dome geologic findings – Richton Dome, Mississippi: Annual Status Report for FY 83: U.S. Department of Energy: Office of Nuclear Waste Isolation, ONWI- 555, 27 p.
______, 1984, Comments on a letter by George D. DeBuchananne (U.S. Geological Survey) regarding the use of salt domes for high-level waste disposal: U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Nuclear Waste Isolation, ONWI-511, 97 p.
______, 1986, Potentiometric-level monitoring program—Mississippi and Louisiana: Annual status report for fiscal year 1984: U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Nuclear Waste Isolation, ONWI- 613, 80 p.
______, 1986, Potentiometric-level monitoring program---Mississippi and Louisiana: Annual Status Report for Fiscal Year 1985, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Nuclear Waste Isolation, ONWI- 623, 83 p.
______, 1987, Deposition of Cretaceous and Tertiary sediments in the eastern Mississippi Salt Basin (with emphasis on the Richton Dome area) - Vol. 1: U.S. Department t of Energy, Office of Nuclear Waste Isolation, BMI/ONWI-657, 256 p.
______, 1987, Regional ground-water flow near Richton and Cypress Creek Domes, Mississippi: Annual status report for fiscal year 1984, U.S. Department t of Energy, Office on Nuclear Waste Isolation, BMI/ONWI-640, 222 p.
______, 1987, Probable maximum flood analysis, Richton Dome, Mississippi---Phase I: U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Nuclear Waste Isolation, ONWI-634, 28 p.
______, 1987, Hypocenters (1977 – 1984) around the Richton Dome and the Melvin, Alabama, 1978 earthquake: U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Nuclear Waste Isolation, ONWI-659, 40 p.
Ertec, Inc., 1983, Midyear FY 83 Richton Dome screening and suitability review: U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Nuclear Waste Isolation, ONWI-484, 103 p.
______, 1983, Preliminary overburden characterization at Richton Dome: U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Nuclear Waste Isolation, ONWI-481, 66 p.
______, 1983, Basin Analysis---Richton Dome area, Mississippi: Annual status report for fiscal year 1982: U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Nuclear Waste Isolation, ONWI-442, 68 p.
______, 1983, Regional ground-water flow near Richton Dome, Mississippi: Annual status report for fiscal year 1982: U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Nuclear Waste Isolation, ONWI-456, 147 p.
pg. 8
______, 1984, Potentiometric-level monitoring program----Mississippi and Louisiana: U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Nuclear Waste Isolation, ONWI-525, 27 p.
______, 1985, Gravity modeling study – Richton Dome, Mississippi: U.S. Department of Energy, contract DE-ACO2- 38CH10140, 66 p.
Gandl, L.A., and C.A. Spiers, 1980, Results of water quality sampling near Richton, Cypress Creek and Lampton Salt Domes, Mississippi: U.S. Geological Survey, Open-file Report 80-443, 14 p., plus maps.
Grant, C.M. and R.M. White, 1981, Gravity studies of seven interior salt domes: report to Law Engineering Testing, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Nuclear Waste Isolation, 132 p.
INTERA Environmental Consultants, Inc., 1984, First status report on regional and local ground-water flow modeling for Richton Dome, Mississippi: U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Nuclear Waste Isolation, ONWI-502, 162 p.
INTERA Technologies, Inc., 1986, Second status report on regional and local ground-water modeling for Richton and Cypress Creek Domes, Mississippi: U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Nuclear Waste Isolation, ONWI-605, 129 p.
Law Engineering Testing Company, 1980, Final draft—area characterization: U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Nuclear Waste Isolation, vol. IV A – Text Mississippi Study Area, vol. IV B – Figures Mississippi Study Area, pagination not continuous.
______, 1981, An analysis of ground-water flow times near seven interior salt domes: report to the U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Nuclear Waste Isolation, 85p.
______, 1982, Gulf Coast salt domes—geologic area characterization report – introduction: U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Nuclear Waste Isolation, ONWI-117, 256 p.
______, 1982, Gulf Coast Salt Domes Geologic Area Characterization Report --- Mississippi Study Area: U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Nuclear Waste Isolation, ONWI-120, pagination not continuous.
______, 1982, Gulf Coast salt domes well completion report: Site MRIG-9: U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Nuclear Waste Isolation, ONWI-178.
______, 1982, Gulf Coast salt domes shallow borings report: U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Nuclear Waste Isolation, ONWI-167, pagination not continuous.
pg. 9
Lord, A.S., C.A. Rautman and K.M. Looff, 2006, Geologic technical assessment: Richton salt dome, Mississippi: Sandia National Laboratories, Report to the U.S. Strategic Petroleum Reserve Project Management Office, New Orleans, La., 29 p.
______, 2007, Geologic technical assessment of the Richton Salt Dome, Mississippi, for potential expansion of the U.S. Strategic Petroleum Reserve: Sandia National Laboratories, Sandia Report SAND2007-0463, 51 p.
McCauley, V.S. and G.E. Raines, 1987, Expected brine movement at potential nuclear waste repository salt sites: U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Nuclear Waste Isolation, BMI/ONWI-654, 151 p.
Pfeifle, T.W., K.D. Mellegard and P.E. Senseny, 1983, Preliminary constitutive properties for salt and nonsalt rocks from four potential repository sites: U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Nuclear Waste Isolation, ONWI-540, 230 p.
______, 1983, Constitutive properties of salt from four sites: U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Nuclear Waste Isolation, ONWI-314, 93 p.
Simcox, A.C., and S. L. Wampler, 1982, Borehole locations on seven interior salt domes: U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Nuclear Waste Isolation, ONWI-280, 93 p.
Spiers, C.A. and L.A. Gandl, 1980, A preliminary report on the geohydrology of the Mississippi Salt Dome Basin: U. S. Geological Survey, Water Resources Investigations, Open-file Report 80-595, 45p.
United States Department of Energy, 1980, Summary characterization and recommendation of study areas for the Gulf Interior Region: Office of Nuclear Waste Isolation, ONWI-18, 75 p.
______, 1981, Geologic evaluation Gulf Coast Salt Domes: Overall assessment of the Gulf Interior Region: U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Nuclear Waste Isolation, ONWI-106, 160 p.
______, 1982, Evaluation of area studies of the U.S. Gulf Coast Salt Dome Basins: location recommendation report: U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Nuclear Waste Isolation, ONWI-109, 192 p.
______, 1982, Gulf Coast salt domes – geologic area characterization report, Mississippi study area: U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Nuclear Waste Isolation, ONWI-120, 464 p.
______, 1986, Environmental Assessment - Richton Dome Site, Mississippi: U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management, vols. 1, 2, 3, DOE/RW-0072, page numbers by chapter.
pg. 10
______, 2006, Site selection for the expansion of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve – Final Environmental Impact Statement: U.S. Department of Energy, Chapters 1-8, Office of Petroleum Reserves (FE-47), Washington, D.C., 776p.
U.S. Government, 2011, Cancellation of supplemental environmental impact statement for ancillary facilities for the Richton site of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve: Federal Register, vol. 76, no. 175, p. 55890.
Werner, M.L., 1986, Evaluation of the structure and stratigraphy over Richton Dome, Mississippi: U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Nuclear Waste Isolation, BMI/ONWI-585, 105 p.
Werner, M.L., 1986, Structure and mineralization of the Richton Dome caprock boring MRIG-9: U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Nuclear Waste Isolation, ONWI-610, 84 p.
Reports From Mississippi Governmental Agencies
BCM Engineers, 1985, Review of groundwater modeling related to the suitability of Richton Dome as a nuclear waste repository: report to the Mississippi Department of Energy and Transportation, Contract #85-195-011, subcontract Task 2, 35p.
______, 1986, An investigation of hydrology related to the suitability of Richton Dome as a nuclear repository: report to the Mississippi Department of Energy and Transportation, Contract #85- 195-011, Task 1, 35 p., plus appendices and 3 maps.
______, 1986, An investigation of dissolution and salt tectonics related to the suitability of Richton Dome as a nuclear repository: report to the Mississippi Department of Energy and Transportation, Contract #85-195-011, Task 2, 24 p., plus map.
BCM Converse, Inc., 1985, Performance assessment for a nuclear waste repository at Richton Dome: Status, uncertainties, requirements: report to the Mississippi Department of Energy and Transportation, Contract #85-195-011, subcontract Task 3, 44p.
______, 1985, Environmental Impacts: report to the Mississippi Department of Energy and Transportation, Contract #85-195-011, subcontract Task 3, 20 p.
______, 1985, Review comments on draft environmental assessments Richton Dome Site, Mississippi: internal report to the Mississippi Department of Energy and Transportation, 139 p.
______, 1985, Review of geophysical data and assessment of the uncertainty of the shape and size of the Richton Dome, Mississippi: Contract No. 85-195-011, subcontract task 4, prepared for the Mississippi Department of Energy and Transportation, 69p.
pg. 11
Bowen, R.L., 1985, Geologically recent uplift and warping in southeastern Mississippi: report to Mississippi Institutions of Higher Learning and Mississippi Department of Energy and Transportation, METB contract 85-195-011, 35p., plus 4 maps.
Burns, D.R., 1985, Review of the geophysical data and assessment of the uncertainty of the shape and size of the Richton Dome, Mississippi: internal report to the Mississippi Department of Energy and Transportation, BCM Converse, Inc. / Arthur D. Little, Inc., Contract #85-195-011, Subcontract Task 4, Jackson, Mississippi, 69p.
Mississippi Department of Environmental Quality, 1993, A geologic report on the feasibility of large- quantity brine disposal in the Richton Dome area: Mississippi Office of Geology, Open-file Report 20, not uniformly numbered, plus maps.
Mississippi State Oil and Gas Board , 1997, Petition of Denbury Management, Inc. to establish special field rules for East Apollo Field, Perry County, Mississippi, Docket No. 362-97-818, Order No. 509-97, 7p.
______, 2010, Oil & gas field maps of Mississippi: Mississippi State Oil & Gas Board, E. Apollo Field, Vol. 1, p. 9.
Schutts, L.D., 1987, Re-evaluation of gravity readings taken in the vicinity of Richton Dome, Perry County, Mississippi: Mississippi Mineral Resources Institute, internal report, 54 p.
Spigener, Sarah and Stephanie Showalter, 2008, Expansion of Strategic Petroleum Reserve under fire: University of Mississippi, Water Log, vol. 28, no. 1.
Swann, C.T., and K.H. Walton, 1988, Review of hydrocarbon producing zones near the Richton Dome high-level nuclear waste site, Perry County, Mississippi: Mississippi Mineral Resources Institute, Open- file Report 88-10, 31 p.
Literature and Document Collections Dedicated to the Richton Dome
Blackman, Carolyn, 1990, Nuclear Waste Disposal Research Collection, Collection M427, University of Southern Mississippi, McCain Library and Archives, Hattiesburg, Mississippi.
Note: This collection is focused on the correspondence of the Perry County Citizens Against Nuclear Waste Disposal, Inc. (PCCANW), a citizens group opposing the proposed high level nuclear waste repository. The collection contains various correspondence (PCCANW-related), notes, technical reports from various governmental agencies, maps, newspaper clippings and various articles. The material dates from about 1969 to 1987. The collection was donated by Carolyn Blackmon in August 1990.
pg. 12
The library at the University of Mississippi (on the main campus in University, Mississippi) contains a set of D.O.E. reports that was originally used by the MMRI and other University of Mississippi researchers when the nuclear waste project was active. The MMRI retains a limited amount of Richton Dome data in its files and library. Many of the reports and data used by the Mississippi Office of Geology were donated to the University of Southern Mississippi library in Hattiesburg, Mississippi, after the end of their nuclear waste studies, although they also retain a limited set of Richton data in their files.
Subsurface Information (Well locations, information sources)
Drilling History
The Richton Dome has been the focus of exploratory drilling at least since the 1940’s. Some of the earliest wells that verified Richton as a salt structure were drilled in the exploration for elemental sulfur resources. Records of these wells still exist and are the most extensive source of information on the Richton caprock. In the 1980’s , Richton was considered a potential site for a national high-level nuclear waste repository, and the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) drilled a set of wells to evaluate the dome’s potential use as a repository. These DOE wells were drilled both on and off the structure and contain the most complete set of data regarding subsurface lithologies. Since Richton was removed from consideration in favor of the Yucca Mountain site in Nevada, these wells have been largely forgotten and are seldom used. Salt domes tend to be targets for oil and gas exploration, especially along the flanks. Richton has seen oil and gas exploration mostly focused on potential traps along the flanks and beneath the salt overhang. East Apollo Field is the only field currently producing from the Richton structure (producing liquid hydrocarbons from the Eutaw Formation).
Most recently, the dome was considered a potential candidate for an expansion of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. Although these studies did not result in new drilling, they did summarize the wells in and around Richton Dome, reviewed dome geometry and cataloged the geophysics data available at the dome (see Lord, Rautman and Looff, 2007). This report is recommended as a summary report. It should be noted, however, that operator and well names used in this report do not always correspond to the records maintained by the Mississippi State Oil and Gas Board (MSOGB). They list a number of wells in Table A-1, for example, with Exploration Drilling as well operator. The MSOGB well permits list the operator as Exploro Corporation for the same wells. Herein, the MSOGB well name usage is followed, as they are the controlling regulatory agency. The MSOGB records are incomplete in some cases. Various scout card collections have been consulted to acquire the missing data in the MSOGB records.
Hydrocarbon Exploration Wells
There have been a number of hydrocarbon test wells drilled near the salt structure. Most of these have been dry holes or encountered hydrocarbons in uneconomical amounts. The small East Apollo field was not developed until 1995 and still produces. Table 1 contains a listing of these wells exclusive of the East Apollo Field, which has a dedicated section following Table 1.
pg. 13
Table 1 – Hydrocarbon Exploration Wells
Operator Lease / Status API Number Latitude Longitude Total Spud / Well Depth Permit (ft) Date Donald Oil Donald APS 23111000850000 31.36695 -89.00727 3100 Feb., Company (Richton), 1924 No. 1 Louisiana Gerald L. P & A 23111200300000 31.358 -88.977 16,540 12/19/77 Land & Reasor Exploration Estate, No. Co. 1 Chevron P & A 23111200890000 31.38828 -89.00439 U.S. A., Inc. Leaf River – TX 21-3, 1 Shell Oil P & A 23111200060000 31.38623 -88.99644 14,497 7/27/72 Company – Masonite NOLA 21-1, 1 Shell Oil Masonite P & A 23111200050000 31.38276 -88.96719 14,930 4/16/72 Company – Et. Al., 23- NOLA 7, 1 Shell Oil P & A 23111200020000 31.39224 -88.97633 12,920 10/11/71 Company – Masonite NOLA Et. Al., 1 Final Oil P & A 23111201070000 31.35968 -88.9884 10,600 3/29/94 and Chemical Ridgeway Co. 34-3, No. 1 Fina Oil and P & A 23111201090000 31.35839 -88.99241 9,025 9/11/94 Chemical Ridgeway Co. 34-4, No. 1 Gulf B.M. P & A 23111000320000 31.36984 -89.00446 8,874 10/15/45 Refining Stevens Co. Co., No. 1
East Apollo Field Wells and Field Production
East Apollo is the only established field associated with the Richton Dome. It is producing liquid hydrocarbons from the Eutaw Formation. From 1995 to 2013 (end of the calendar year) it has produced 510,509 barrels of oil and 13,910,863 barrels of produced water. The East Apollo wells are summarized in Table 2, below. The E. C. Sellers well remains closed in as of this date.
pg. 14
Table 2 – East Apollo Field Wells Operator Lease / Status API Number Latitude Longitude Total Spud / Well Depth Permit (ft)*1 Date Petro Sellers, Closed In 23111201110100 31.35884 -88.9588 7558 7/30/95 Harvester E. C., 36- Operating 4, No. 1 Co., LLC Petro J.C. Oil 23111201241000 31.35557 -88.955 8600 3/19/97 Harvester Hillman, production Operating 36, H-1 Co., LLC Petro East Salt water 23111201280000 31. 36121 -88.9476 5990 12/30/97 Harvester Apollo disposal Operating SWD #1 Co., LLC Denbury Fairley, No Report 23111201170100 31.33854 -88.9441 8647 1/30/04 Onshore, LLC 1-5, 1 Submitted Petro Chris Salt water 2311120157 31.36448 -88.9590 5/18/13 Harvester Dunn disposal Operating 25-12 Co., LLC Fina Oil and Leaf DH, P&A 2311120115 31.37352 -88.9509 8224 6/9/96 Chemical River 26- 2, 1 Denbury Lee J. EX 23111201291000 31.362 -88.953 7000 2/18/98 Management Ball 25- 14, No. H1 Notes:1) total depth derived from permit or completion data; 2)DH=dry hole, P&A=plugged and abandoned.
As can be seen in Figure 2, below, the oil production in East Apollo has been slowly declining since 2003. The produced water was on an upward trend and peaked in 2009, but has been generally declining since. Although water production is declining, these wells still produce significant amounts of brine that must be disposed of by way of underground injection.
pg. 15
Figure 2 - Oil and Water Production in East Apollo (in barrels) 1400000
1200000
1000000
800000
Oil 600000
400000
200000
0
Sulfur Exploration Wells
The earliest exploration wells drilled on the Richton Dome were completed in 1944 – 1945 as part of a regional-scale search for elemental sulfur. Gravity anomalies guided the exploration drilling program and, as a result, several Mississippi salt domes were confirmed. At this early date, geophysical logging was in its infancy, so only a few wells had geophysical logs. Written core descriptions and cuttings logs are common for these early wells. No trace of the original core could be located and is presumed to have been discarded as no economic amounts of sulfur were discovered. These wells are useful to characterize the cap rock over the salt stock.
Table 3 – Sulfur Exploration Wells Operator Lease / Well Status API Number Latitude Longitude Total Spud / Depth Permit Date (ft) Minsearch J.B. Cantrell P&A 2311100051 31.35698 -88.95536 935 1/3/45 Corp. Estate, No.1 Minsearch Grafton Rich, P &A 23111000570000 31.36409 -88.96011 872 1/12/45 Corp. No. 1 Minsearch E. C. Fishel, P& A 23111000540000 31.33864 -88.95197 979 1/28/45 Corp. No. 1
pg. 16
Table 3 – Sulfur Exploration Wells Operator Lease / Well Status API Number Latitude Longitude Total Spud / Depth Permit Date (ft) Minsearch J. T. Smith, P & A 23111000640000 31.34923 -88.98148 1050 2/5/45 Corp. No. 1 Minsearch J. W. Pope, P & A 23111000550000 31.34413 -88.96421 583 1/10/45 Corp. No. 1 Minsearch J. W. Pope, P & A 23111000560000 31.33506 -88.96458 1591 1/2/45 Corp. No. 2 P &A 23111000140000 31.37251 -88.9588 1862.31 10/31/1944 Exploro Masonite
Corp. Corp., No. 2 Eliza P &A 23111000480000 31.35137 -88.95141 3000 1/18/45 Minsearch Backstrom, Corp. No. 1 Eliza P & A 23111000490000 31.34955 -88.95893 722 1/28/45 Minsearch Backstrom, Corp. No. 2 P & A 23111000500000 31.34472 -88.95044 1312 1/30/45 Minsearch Eva Carey
Corp. No. 1 P & A 23111000620000 31.55589 -88.97303 717 12/18/44 Minsearch L.E. Ridgeway
Corp. “B” 10 P & A 23111000130000 31.38577 -88.97715 856 10/28/44 Exploro Masonite
Corp. Corp., No.1 P & A 23111000150000 31.37517 -88.99258 738.7 10/24/44 Exploro Masonite
Corp. Corp., No. 3 P & A 23111000170000 31.37641 -88.96464 969 11/11/44 Exploro Masonite
Corp. Corp., No. 5 P & A 23111000180000 31.37511 -88.97265 632 11/9/44 Exploro Masonite
Corp. Corp., No. 6 P & A 23111000190000 31.37955 -88.97855 735 11/30/44 Exploro Masonite
Corp. Corp., No 7 P & A 23111000200000 31.37658 -88.9855 765 11/23/44 Exploro Masonite
Corp. Corp., No. 8 P & A 23111000210000 31.38194 -88.98644 740 11/22/44 Exploro Masonite
Corp. Corp., No. 9 P & A 23111000220000 31.36978 -88.96643 713 11/17/44 Exploro Masonite
Corp. Corp., No. 10 P & A 23111000160000 31.38234 -88.97111 771 11/14/44 Exploro Masonite
Corp. Corp., No. 4
pg. 17
Table 3 – Sulfur Exploration Wells Operator Lease / Well Status API Number Latitude Longitude Total Spud / Depth Permit Date (ft) P & A N/A *1 *1 941 1/17/45 Minsearch Eva Carey, Corp. No. 2 Mrs. Eva P & A 23111000520000 31.34448 -88.94592 2000 Jan. 26, 1945 Minsearch Carey, No. 2- Corp. A P & A 23111000260000 31.37034 -88.98546 682 11/28/44 Exploro L.E. Ridgway,
Corp. B-5 P & A 23111000580000 31.36661 -88.99282 765 12/3/44 Minsearch L.E. Ridgway,
Corp. B-6 P & A 23111000590000 31.36278 -88.98122 702 12/5/44 Minsearch L. E. Ridgway,
Corp. B-7 P & A 23111000600000 31.35569 -88.98143 779 12/11/44 Minsearch L.E. Ridgway,
Corp. B-8 P & A 23111000270000 31.36765 -88.97344 640 11/17/44 Minsearch L.E. Ridgway,
Corp. B-11 P & A 23111000230000 31.37271 -88.97857 672 10/14/44 Exploro L.E. Ridgway,
Corp. B-1 P &A 23111000240000 31.35897 -88.99025 896 10/17/44 Exploro L.E. Ridgway,
Corp. B-2 P & A 23111000250000 31.36186 -88.97119 730 11/3/44 Exploro L.E. Ridgway,
Corp. B-3 P&A 23111000630000 31.34283 -88.9742 873 12/15/44 Minsearch L. E. Ridgway,
Corp. B-12 P & A 23111000610000 31.35227 -88.98876 2601 12/9/44 Minsearch L.E. Ridgway,
Corp. B, B-9 P & A 23111000120000 31.35086 -88.96582 700 10/9/44 Exploro W.E. Carter,
Corp. No. 1 P & A 23111000530000 31.34095 -88.96004 682 2/6/45 Minsearch W.E. Carter,
Corp. No.2 NOTES: *1 – The drill stem twisted off in the Eva Carey No. 2 well and it could not be recovered, so, the Eva Carey No. 2A was drilled eight feet north of the Eva Carey No. 2.
pg. 18
U. S. Department Of Energy Test Wells
The DOE contractors drilled a number of wells on and adjacent to the salt stock in order to characterize and evaluate the dome for a potential high-level nuclear waste repository. The MRIG-9 well was cored to characterize the cap rock in detail. It is noteworthy as the DOE published a detailed report on the core (see Werner, 1986). Some wells were drilled off the structure to characterize the adjacent aquifers and some were “nested”, meaning a set of wells was drilled in one location, but to different depths (MRIH-11, for example).
Table 4 – U. S. Department of Energy Repository Characterization Wells Operator Well Name Status API Latitude Longitude Total Notes / Number Depth Comments (ft) *1 Stone & D.O.E., J. R. P & A 231112004 31.324486 -88.997553 6041 Component of Webster Smith, MRIH 50000 11A well Engineering #11A “nest” with same location Stone & D.O.E., J. R. P & A 231112004 31.324486 -88.997553 2565 Component of Webster Smith, MRIH 60000 11A well Engineering #11B “nest” with same location Stone & D.O.E., J. R. P & A 231112004 31.324486 -88.997553 1620 Component of Webster Smith, MRIH 70000 11A well Engineering #11D “nest” with same location Stone & D.O.E., P & A 231112005 2699 Outside of Webster Masonite 00000 study area Engineering Corp, #MRIG 10 Stone & D.O.E., P & A 231112004 31.372308 -88.970381 1275 Webster Masonite 90000 Engineering Corp, #MRIG 9 Stone & D.O.E., J. R. P & A N/A 31.324486 -88.997553 400 Component of Webster Smith, MRIH 11A well Engineering #11 WS “nest” with same location Stone & D.O.E., J.R. P & A 231112004 31.324486 -88.997553 940 Component of Webster Smith, MRIH 80000 11A well Engineering #11D “nest” with same location Dept. of Masonite, P&A N/A 31.375441 -88.985436 79 Start date Energy MRIG-201 12/12/79 Dept. of Masonite, P & A N/A 31.361886 -88.970302 200 Start date Energy MRIG-202 10/16/79
pg. 19
Table 4 – U. S. Department of Energy Repository Characterization Wells Operator Well Name Status API Latitude Longitude Total Notes / Number Depth Comments (ft) *1 Dept. of Masonite, P & A N/A 31.380253 -88.972312 120 Energy MRIG-203 Dept. of Masonite, P & A N/A 31.388643 -88.977529 175 Energy MRIG-204 Dept. of Masonite, P & A N/A 31.386653 -88.991881 140 Energy MRIG-205 Dept. of Masonite, P & A N/A 31.386277 -88.956322 75 Energy MRIG-208 Dept. of Masonite, P & A N/A 31.388539 -88.962094 50 Energy MRIG-209 Dept. of Hillman, P & A N/A 31.355946 -88.954648 180 Energy MRIG-210 Dept. of McCardle, P & A N/A 31.362732 -88.953381 140 Energy MRIG-211 Dept. of Valentine, P & A N/A 31.355921 -88.962906 180 Energy MRIG-212 Dept. of McLendon, P & A N/A 31.346386 -88.945015 100.5 Energy MRIG-213 Dept. of Hillman, P& A N/A 31.344372 -88.957817 120 Energy MRIG-215 Dept. of McLendon, P & A N/A 31.338678 -88.959451 120 Energy MRIG-216 Dept. of Godfrey, P & A N/A 31.326936 -88.971391 170 Energy MRIG-217 Dept. of Hillman, P & A N/A 31.366164 -88.98397 140 Energy MRIG-219 Dept. of Oliphant, P & A N/A 31.335094 -88.945431 120 Energy MRIG-220 Dept. of Oliphant, P & A N/A 31.348119 -88.960342 124 Energy MRIG-222 Dept. of Oliphant, P & A N/A 31.345772 -88.97498 160 Energy MRIG-223 Dept. of Oliphant, P & A N/A 31.340817 -88.983461 129 Energy MRIG-224 Dept. of Hillman, P & A N/A 31.360861 -88.970534 150 Energy MRIG-226 Dept. of Hillman, P & A N/A 31.359598 -88.98504 140 Energy MRIG-227 Dept. of Ridgway, P & A N/A 31.358833 -88.996208 120 Energy MRIG-228 Dept. of Beasley, P&A N/A 100 Outside of Energy MRIG-229 study area
pg. 20
Table 4 – U. S. Department of Energy Repository Characterization Wells Operator Well Name Status API Latitude Longitude Total Notes / Number Depth Comments (ft) *1 Dept. of Smith, MRIG- P & A N/A 31.346648 -88.984841 159.5 Energy 230 Dept. of Masonite, P & A N/A 120.5 Outside of Energy MRIG-232 study area Dept. of Masonite, P & A N/A 31.398327 -88.961673 500 Energy MRIG-301 Dept. of Masonite, P & A N/A 31.38443 -88.974766 500 Energy MRIG-302 Dept. of Hillman, P & A N/A 31.362014 -88.979667 491 Energy MRIG-303 Dept. of Hillman, P & A N/A 31.355018 -88.985946 500 Energy MRIG-304 Dept. of McSwain, P & A N/A 31.33287 -88.993344 550.9 Energy MRIG-305 Dept. of Clearman, P & A N/A 31.345711 -88.971552 490 Energy MRIG-306 Dept. of Hillman, P & A N/A 31.350075 -88.96213 533.5 Energy MRIG-307 Dept. of Hillman, P & A N/A 31.355946 -88.954648 500 Energy MRIG-308 Dept. of Ridgway, P & A N/A 31.34705 -88.988463 360 Energy MRIG-309 Dept. of Hillman, P & A N/A 31.359519 -88.983821 400 Energy MRIG-310 Notes: *1 – Depths are derived from drillers depths as listed on geophysical logs and may vary slightly from other listed depths such as logged depth or ONWI-167 listing.
Potential Uses of the Richton Salt Structure
The shallow depth and size of the salt structure make it attractive for a number of potential economic uses. Perhaps the most obvious potential use of the dome is mining the salt as a product or as raw material for other industrial processes. Salt domes in Louisiana have been mined for decades and are a major producer of table salt. Although additional analysis is required, the salt purity should be adequate for most purposes. Considering Richton’s shallow depth and its lateral extent, underground mining should be a feasible use for the resource. The extensive lateral extent allows a mining operation to develop that could provide years of resource utilization. The room and pillar mining methods typically used in salt mining is a well-developed technology as are the various methods of advancing the initial access shaft through the water-saturated overburden. There is railroad access as well as suitable highways over or near the dome improving the economic feasibility of salt prospects. Much of the over dome area is sparsely populated with the town of Richton above only a small portion of the southeastern edge of the dome. pg. 21
Petroleum storage is another potential salt dome use. Mississippi has six salt domes used for underground natural gas storage. As the United States produces increased amounts of natural gas, adequate storage becomes increasingly important. As illustrated in the Sandia National Laboratories review (Lord, Rautman and Looff, 2007), there are a number of gas pipelines near or over the dome. Gas storage in salt caverns is considered a superior method of storage because the gas can be moved in and out of the storage cavern quickly and the gas input/output ratio is high. The caverns in which the gas is stored are solution caverns formed by dissolving the salt around a well by circulating fresh water in a controlled fashion. A source of freshwater is needed as is an injection well to dispose of salt- saturated waters used in the process. As in salt mining, the technology to construct these solution caverns is well developed and the six operating salt dome storage facilities have successfully used this technology. The primary goal of Lord, Rautman and Looff, 2007, was to evaluate the feasibility of constructing caverns within Richton Dome to supplement the liquid hydrocarbon storage capabilities of the U.S. Strategic Petroleum Reserve. Their conclusion was that it could be successfully done at Richton. Liquid or gaseous hydrocarbon products could also be stored in dome solution caverns.
Compressed air energy storage (CAES) is a novel use of salt dome storage space. In 1986 the Alabama Electric Cooperative proposed that either the Petal Dome in Hattiesburg, (Forrest County) Mississippi, or the McIntosh Dome in Washington County, Alabama, be developed for compressed air energy storage (see Alabama Electric Cooperative, 1986*1). The preferred site was the McIntosh Dome in Alabama. The CAES technology consists of mining or dissolving salt to form cavities within the dome. The cavity is sealed and air compressors on the surface pump air into the cavity. The cavern air is compressed to a high degree. The air compressors work in times of minimal electrical demands. When demand peaks and additional generating capacity is needed, the air inside the caverns is released to operate generators at the surface which produces electricity to the grid.
*1) Alabama Electric Cooperative, Inc., 1987, Alternatives evaluation and site selection study for compressed air energy storage: Nine chapters individually numbered, plus appendices, and attached maps.
Acknowledgements
The author acknowledges the assistance of Mr. Michael B.E. Bograd, Mississippi Office of Geology. Mr. Bograd assisted in identifying Richton-related documents held in the Office of Geology files and helped us recall publications and data used by the MMRI and the Office of Geology during the nuclear waste studies in the 1980s. Scott Milo, University of Mississippi graduate student assisted with the preparation of the digital data and Paul Mitchell prepared the illustrations used in this report. Many thanks to Carol Lutken, MMRI Associate Director, for her critique of the manuscript.
pg. 22
Certification
The geological work described in this report, COMPILATION OF GEOLOGICAL INFORMATION FOR THE RICHTON SALT DOME, PERRY COUNTY, MISSISSIPPI, contains facts and the interpretation of facts standard to the practice of geology. I have reviewed the contents of this document in sufficient detail to accept responsibility for its geological content.
pg. 23